In all reality, any hand gun could malfunction and fire when dropped, even the beloved glock. This story really seems to be missing something. I've heard of the 229 equinox recall, what other agencies have returned the p320s?

It seems that a drop test would be included in the evaluation protocols during the trials for adoption.

hkguy wrote:In all reality, any hand gun could malfunction and fire when dropped, even the beloved glock. This story really seems to be missing something. I've heard of the 229 equinox recall, what other agencies have returned the p320s?

Not returned necessarily, but one such example is the ATF determined that it simply was unfit for duty during testing:

People forget when Sig protested Glock and Smith winning the ATF contract and this gem of a quote was exposed, "Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III. In this regard, Sig Sauer argues that reliability was only one of a number of elements to be considered in the live-fire assessment, and notes that reliability was not identified as having any more importance than the other elements.[11] We disagree." http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm

Sig protested when the 320 was eliminated from consideration for the ATF contract due to failing the reliability test. They protested because despite that their design proved unreliable, they claimed there are other important factors than reliability.

hkguy wrote:In all reality, any hand gun could malfunction and fire when dropped, even the beloved glock. This story really seems to be missing something. I've heard of the 229 equinox recall, what other agencies have returned the p320s?

Not returned necessarily, but one such example is the ATF determined that it simply was unfit for duty during testing:

which is fine, it did not pass testing. ive got no gripe there. what other agencies which have adopted the gun are returning them?

imagine if they applied the same logic to their less leathal kit. its one thing to shelf kit based on repeatable failures, but shelving kit on the notion it might some how inadvertently fail is silly. the article states there are no documented cases of failure. FFFs, a glock, hk, beretta, M&P etc could all discharge a round if dropped along with the sig.

hkguy wrote:which is fine, it did not pass testing. ive got no gripe there. what other agencies which have adopted the gun are returning them?

I don't know of any specifically who have done this, but that wasn't my gripe. I just think it's a damn shame that a premium gun manufacturer is building crap. That they couldn't even make it through the ATF testing is even worse. Everybody makes it through testing. They haven't won anything, but Taurus makes it through testing. Of the Sig 320, the ATF stated:

From the link above:

"These records show that ATF's agents recorded 58 stoppages with Sig Sauer's full-size and compact pistols, 13 of which were considered to be gun-induced and 45 shooter-induced.[4] Id., Tab 2, Competitive Range Determination, at 3.[5] In contrast, the agents recorded a total of 16 shooter‑induced stoppages for Smith & Wesson's guns and 7 shooter-induced stoppages for Glock's guns. There were no gun-induced stoppages recorded for the Smith & Wesson or Glock guns."

I'm quite fond of my Sigs and I know that Sig can build some damn fine handguns...but the 320 is not one.

hkguy wrote:i find it rather comical that everyone is losing their proverbial over this and are fine with rifles with free floating firing pins that exhibit the same defect.

Why I never keep a round chambered in a rifle. The "tactical expert extreme operators" can bitch all they want, and I don't care.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

hkguy wrote:the government contract model has the upgraded fire control group which will be retrofitted into all prexisting p320 models which is apparently "safe"

I think not only did they drop the ball on the original design, but the fix is a bullshit fix. They basically made the trigger lighter so that the inertia wouldn't pull itself during a fall. What they should have done is implement a firing pin safety. That is the real fix.

i find it rather comical that everyone is losing their proverbial over this and are fine with rifles with free floating firing pins that exhibit the same defect.

...except that it's not the same defect. The AR15 drop fire could potentially occur if dropped on the barrel end. If you're standing on concrete there would be potential ricochet hazard, but that's not quite the same thing as the Sig firing upwards. In addition, drop an AR15 5,000 times and it might go off once (and only then on a soft primer). The Sig on the other hand consistently drop-fires and can be replicated as many times as you want to try it.

Don't get the wrong idea on my position here; Sig knows how to build a good gun. This failure however, the lack of a FPS in a combat duty handgun, is inexcusable. The original 1911s didn't have them, but they were also originally carried with an empty chamber.

hkguy wrote:the government contract model has the upgraded fire control group which will be retrofitted into all prexisting p320 models which is apparently "safe"

I think not only did they drop the ball on the original design, but the fix is a bullshit fix. They basically made the trigger lighter so that the inertia wouldn't pull itself during a fall. What they should have done is implement a firing pin safety. That is the real fix.

machines break and malfunction on a regular basis. the gun has proven to be acceptable to several reputable agencies for a few years now and a which hunt happened due to a quote taken out of context. The next thing you know you have every keayboard warrior with a camera whacking the back of their gun with a hammer to simulate a failure that might occur. i wonder how many times a dropped gun will land on that specific spot. Im not giving the gun an automatic pass but i think the sheep in general are over-reacting.

hkguy wrote: i wonder how many times a dropped gun will land on that specific spot.

Doesn't matter. The fact that it is in any way capable of firing when dropped is simply unacceptable in the modern world. A gun being 100% drop safe should be as standard as a car with seat belts.

no firearm is 100% impervious from failing. no matter the number or types of safties. they are all machines and will fail at some point. while it is unsettling for sig owners, even glock, HK, springfield, etc will at some point in time fail if dropped. this is a reality we have to accept.

this is the best explanation i could find after spending a good 90 minutes sifting through the on the inter webs. the TL:DR is that it passes all government mandated drop tests. reducing the trigger weight roughly 30% will eliminate discharges due to inertia.

This isn't a malfunction or breakage; this is a poor design. There is no excuse for not having a FPS in this gun designed as a duty gun.

the gun has proven to be acceptable to several reputable agencies for a few years now and a which hunt happened due to a quote taken out of context.

The drop discharge is a completely different issue from the Dallas PD issue. I suppose that I could have started another thread, but saw little point. The Dallas issue was a simple misunderstanding; the drop-fire issue is legitimate.

even glock, HK, springfield, etc will at some point in time fail if dropped. this is a reality we have to accept.

I would ask you to cite any such example from any of these guns that have FPS in the design. And even if you could, it would be the "one in a million" result of mechanical failure. With the Sig however, drop the gun 100 times in that same angle and you will get 100 discharges. I cannot see how you can equate this with mechanical failure?